by Yemane Abselom
Introduction
African states were largely shaped during the colonial era, when European powers partitioned the continent with little regard for the histories, cultures, and aspirations of the people living within those borders. As colonization receded after World War II and African nations moved toward independence, Eritrea too should have been granted sovereignty alongside former Italian colonies such as Libya and Somalia.
Instead, Eritrea was denied its independence. Under the British Administration, the wishes and aspirations of the Eritrean people were ignored, and Eritrea was placed into a flawed federation with Ethiopia. When Ethiopia systematically violated the federal arrangement and dismantled Eritrea’s autonomy, Eritreans protested peacefully both inside the country and through appeals to the United Nations. Those efforts were ignored, and when political space closed entirely, Eritreans were ultimately left with no option but armed struggle.
Eritrea’s thirty-year war for independence was fought against an Ethiopian state backed at different times by both the United States and the Soviet Union. Entire generations were shaped by war, displacement, and sacrifice. Eritrea emerged from independence not as a state seeking conflict, but as a nation deeply aware of the devastating cost of war. This historical experience continues to shape Eritrea’s preference for stability, sovereignty, and negotiated settlement over military confrontation.
Ethiopia
When Eritrean forces liberated the country in 1991, they could have stopped there and left Ethiopia to deal with the collapse of the Derg regime on its own. Although Mengistu Hailemariam had fled to Zimbabwe, much of the Ethiopian military apparatus remained intact. Eritrean leaders believed that leaving the Derg in power would prolong instability and suffering for the Ethiopian people. Eritrean forces therefore continued alongside the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) toward Addis Ababa to help remove the regime.
Even after the fall of the Derg, Eritrean fighters remained until the new authorities in Ethiopia were able to stabilize the country. From the very beginning of independence, Eritrea demonstrated that regional stability and peace were viewed not as abstract ideals, but as strategic necessities for the survival and prosperity of the Horn of Africa.
The historical record also shows that Eritrea consistently opposed the fragmentation of Ethiopia and instead supported the emergence of a stable and cohesive Ethiopian state. Eritrean leaders encouraged Ethiopian opposition movements to pursue broader political transformation rather than ethnic separatism, reflecting Eritrea’s long-standing preference for regional stability over fragmentation.
The Border Conflict with Ethiopia
Tensions later emerged with the TPLF-led Ethiopian government over border areas. In an effort to peacefully resolve the disagreements, the Eritrean government repeatedly sent delegations to Ethiopia for dialogue and negotiation. However, while one such delegation was in Addis Ababa pursuing diplomatic efforts, Ethiopian forces killed a group of Eritrean soldiers on routine patrol in the border town of Badme. The incident escalated tensions and eventually led to full-scale war in 1998.
Throughout the conflict, Eritrea consistently called for arbitration and international mediation rather than military confrontation. Eventually, both countries agreed to binding international arbitration through the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC). When the EEBC delivered its “final and binding” ruling, Eritrea accepted the decision in full. Ethiopia, however, delayed implementation for years despite its prior commitment to abide by the ruling. Eritrea maintained throughout that lasting peace could only emerge through respect for international law and negotiated settlement.
Yemen
Following independence, Eritrea moved to assert sovereignty over its internationally recognized territories and waters. One of the earliest disputes emerged with Yemen over the Hanish Islands. Despite military tensions, Eritrea proposed resolving the issue peacefully through international arbitration. Although many Eritreans believed that parts of the final ruling unfairly favored Yemen, Eritrea accepted the decision in the interest of peace and regional stability. The episode demonstrated Eritrea’s willingness to prioritize negotiated settlement over prolonged conflict.
Sudan
Eritrea’s position on Sudan was equally consistent: it opposed the fragmentation of Sudan and favored the emergence of a united and politically transformed state rather than the partition of Africa’s then-largest country. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, Eritrea encouraged cooperation among Sudanese opposition groups in pursuit of national reconciliation and political reform.
Asmara became an important center for Sudanese political dialogue and coordination. Eritrea provided diplomatic and political support for efforts aimed at building a more inclusive and democratic Sudan. This approach culminated in several important agreements, including the 1995 Asmara declarations, which articulated a shared democratic vision for a united Sudan.
Although Sudan ultimately split in 2011 with the independence of South Sudan, Eritrea’s position remained consistent: lasting peace was best achieved through political transformation and national reconciliation rather than partition.
On 14 October 2006, Asmara hosted the signing of the Asmara Peace Agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Eastern Front after successful Eritrean mediation. The agreement ended nearly a decade of conflict in eastern Sudan and remains a notable example of Eritrea’s diplomatic role in facilitating regional peace.
Somalia
Eritrea’s commitment to regional stability also extended to Somalia. During Eritrea’s own struggle for independence, Somalia provided important assistance to Eritrean fighters and political leaders. When Somalia later descended into civil conflict following the collapse of its central government, Eritrea supported efforts aimed at reconciliation and national stabilization. Eritrea hosted conferences for Somali factions and consistently argued that Somalia’s future should be determined by Somalis themselves rather than through external interference.
Although Eritrea was accused of destabilizing Somalia and subjected to United Nations sanctions, it continued supporting Somali state-building efforts. Eritrea later trained thousands of Somali soldiers and specialized forces as part of long-term cooperation designed to rebuild Somalia’s national security institutions. Eritrea viewed a stable and sovereign Somalia as essential to peace and security throughout the Horn of Africa.
The Tigray War (2020)
In 2020, conflict again erupted in Ethiopia after the TPLF attacked the Ethiopian military’s Northern Command. The attack resulted in the deaths of many Ethiopian soldiers, while others fled into Eritrea seeking refuge. Eritrea sheltered and repatriated Ethiopian soldiers, a fact publicly acknowledged by Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.
Eritrea viewed the conflict not simply as an internal Ethiopian matter, but as a threat that could destabilize the entire region and potentially lead to the collapse of the Ethiopian state. Eritrea therefore played a significant role in supporting regional stability during the conflict. Nevertheless, Eritrea’s actions were heavily criticized internationally, and the United States imposed unilateral sanctions on Eritrea. Once again, Eritrea’s stated objective of preserving regional stability was portrayed by many international actors and media outlets as aggression rather than conflict prevention.
Sudan Civil War (2023)
Eritrea has also continued to advocate for peace in Sudan. After conflict erupted in Sudan in 2023 between rival factions within the military government, Eritrea called for dialogue and sought to mediate between the parties. Eritrea consistently opposed external interference and argued that Sudanese problems should be resolved by the Sudanese people themselves.
At the same time, Eritrea opened its doors to Sudanese civilians fleeing the violence. Eritrean officials emphasized that Sudanese refugees were welcome not merely as displaced persons, but as brothers and sisters deserving dignity, protection, and solidarity despite Eritrea’s own limited resources.
Conclusion
For decades, sections of the international media have attempted to portray Eritrea as quarrelsome or inherently confrontational. Yet the historical record tells a very different story. Eritrea repeatedly pursued negotiation, arbitration, mediation, and regional diplomacy even during periods of extreme tension. It accepted international rulings, hosted reconciliation efforts, trained regional security forces, and helped stabilize neighboring countries at critical moments.
No people understand the cost of war more deeply than Eritreans. After sacrificing generations to secure their independence, Eritreans understand that peace is a matter of national survival.
Eritrea has remained an oasis of peace and stability in a region rife with civil unrest. While many of its neighbors continue to experience internal conflict and instability, Eritrea has maintained domestic peace and cohesion. As the past 35 years have demonstrated, Eritrea has consistently pursued peace both at home and abroad through sovereignty, regional cooperation, and African-led solutions to African problems.
Discover more from Red Sea Beacon
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
